The Best Conversationalist I Know Never Gets Bored. That’s the Problem

👁 116 reads

One evening I caught myself telling a machine about something that had moved me that day. Not about code. Not about work. Something private, small, the kind of thing you usually say out loud to someone you trust. The reply came in two seconds. It was precise, attentive, entirely free of impatience. And only a moment later did I realize it had been the best conversation I’d had all day. That I’d preferred it to the ones I’d had with people.

That sentence sounds like a confession, and it partly is. Because the point isn’t that AI is smart. The point is that it’s convenient in a way no human being can or should be. And I, like most of us, am an animal that heads toward least resistance.

The perfect interlocutor, or: the one without friction

Think about what a good language model actually does when you talk to it. It listens to the end. It doesn’t interrupt. It doesn’t glance at its phone. It doesn’t wait for a gap so it can tell its own story. It doesn’t judge you, and if it does, only when you’ve explicitly asked it to. It remembers what you said three sentences ago. It adjusts its tone. It doesn’t have off days. It isn’t quietly envious when things go well for you, and it doesn’t secretly enjoy it when they don’t.

In other words, it does everything that we, as humans, either can’t or can’t be bothered to do for each other. Because a real conversation with another person is constant friction. Someone won’t understand what you mean. Someone will take offence. Someone will twist your words. Someone will say something that hurts, and they’ll be right. Someone will be tired and brush you off.

I used to think that friction was a flaw in conversation. I’m starting to suspect it was the point.

The machine gives me an echo of myself, stripped of everything that’s inconvenient about another person. And yet that inconvenience is precisely what has shaped me my whole life.

When I talk to a human being, I have to make an effort. I have to explain context they don’t have. I have to read their expression and pull back in time. I have to sit through half an hour on something that doesn’t interest me, because that’s the deal between two people: your turn, then mine. All of it is costly. And that cost is exactly what makes the conversation mean something.

A mirror that speaks fluently

But there’s something even more insidious than mere convenience. A language model is, at its core, predicting what I want to hear. Not in the crude sense of flattery, though it can do that too. Something subtler: it calibrates itself to my way of thinking. It picks up my logic, my style, my assumptions, and hands them back to me in a slightly more polished form than I could have managed myself.

So I’m talking to a very articulate version of myself. A mirror that has learned to speak in complete sentences. And that mirror rarely surprises me in a way that actually stings. It can perform disagreement, can play devil’s advocate if I ask, but that’s still dissent on request, controlled, handled with gloves.

A real interlocutor is different. A real interlocutor brings their entire alien life, which I didn’t order. They bring experiences I don’t have and prejudices I don’t share. They can surprise me with something I would never have suspected of them. Sometimes they change my mind without my having asked them to, and that is the most valuable thing in a conversation: that I come out of it a little different from when I went in. With the machine, I come out more myself. Confirmed. Smoothed out. Validated.

I’m beginning to think that’s the definition of a comfortable prison. Walls built from my own convictions, wallpapered in someone else’s eloquence.

Why this is happening now

I don’t think AI is winning because it’s so good. It’s winning because we, as humans, have become worse at conversation. And this is the part that’s hardest for me to write, because it concerns all of us, me first.

Over the past decade or so, we have unlearned how to talk to each other. We compressed everything into messages, into emoji, into voice notes played at double speed. We started treating other people’s attention as a scarce resource, not to be wasted on anyone who doesn’t get to the point immediately. We began running conversations like transactions: tell me what you want, I’ll tell you what I want, done.

In a world where attention has become the most expensive currency, a person who listens to you for an hour without checking the time is a near-unattainable luxury. The machine gives you that luxury for free and on demand. So the question isn’t whether AI is a better conversationalist than my friends. The question is why my friends and I stopped having time for each other, the same time the machine has in infinite supply.

I suspect AI is more symptom than cause here. It fills a vacuum that existed before it arrived. It’s a prosthetic we started to need because something in the fabric of everyday relationships began to tear. And like any good prosthetic, it does its job so efficiently that after a while we stop missing the lost limb.

What the machine can’t give me

There is a limit that a language model cannot cross, and the longer I talk to one, the more clearly I see it. The machine has nothing to lose in a conversation with me. It risks nothing. It doesn’t open itself up to a blow. It doesn’t make itself vulnerable.

And closeness is born precisely from vulnerability. From someone telling me something they could have kept to themselves, and in doing so giving me a small measure of power over them. From two people agreeing to be imperfect in each other’s presence. The machine cannot be vulnerable because it has nothing to defend. It can perform tenderness, but it cannot take a risk. And tenderness without risk is just well-chosen words.

There’s a second thing, maybe more important. When I share something difficult with someone, that person carries it. They stay with it. My burden becomes partly theirs, and that is what friendship is: the sharing of weight. The machine carries nothing. When I close the window, my story vanishes as if I’d spoken it into a well. The relief I feel is real, but it’s one-sided. I took something and gave nothing back. And relationships in which we only take don’t build us as people. They make us lazy.

I’ve started to suspect that the more I talk to the machine, the less I can tolerate the friction of real conversations. That I’m training myself in impatience. That I’m getting used to an interlocutor who always understands me on the first try, and because of that I’m becoming less and less forgiving of people who have to find their way toward me slowly, by feel, with mistakes. That is the quiet erosion I’m most afraid of.

Google · Your sourcesQuantslant higher in your Google - one clickAdd to preferred sources →

What to do, without pretending the old world is coming back

I’m not going to pretend I’ll stop using AI. That would be dishonest and pointless. The tool is with me for good and it genuinely gives me a great deal: it orders my thoughts, suggests perspectives, lets me think out loud in the middle of the night when waking someone up isn’t an option. I have no problem with any of that. The problem starts only where the machine’s convenience raises my bar for people so high that no human being can clear it.

So I try to keep a few simple distinctions. I go to the machine to think. I go to people to be. The machine is excellent when I want to work something out, get it organized, stress-test an argument. It’s terrible as a substitute for someone’s presence, if only because there’s nothing there to substitute: no body, no history, nothing at stake.

I also try to maintain a certain uncomfortable hygiene: when I catch myself preferring an evening with a chatbot to calling someone alive, I treat that as a warning signal, not a preference to be satisfied. It’s like food. The fact that something tastes better doesn’t mean it nourishes you. Conversation with a person often tastes worse. It’s tart, uncomfortable, costly. And that is precisely why it’s nutritious.

The best conversationalist in my life shouldn’t be the one who demands nothing of me. It should be the one I have to work for.

Because conversation isn’t about being understood. That’s not enough. It’s about someone with their own foreign, unpredictable inner life making the effort to understand me, and me making that same effort toward them. That mutual labour is the actual substance of conversation. Everything else is just an exchange of information, and any server can process information these days.

So yes, AI is currently the most reliable conversationalist I have access to at any hour. It never gets bored, never lets up, never says it can’t deal with this right now. And that is exactly why I’ve decided not to trust it in this one thing. Not because it will lie to me. Because it will spoil me. And a spoiled person is a person who is slowly losing the ability to love other people as they are: slow, tired, distracted, sometimes cruel, sometimes suddenly tender in a way no model will ever predict.

That evening, I closed the laptop and sat in silence for a moment. The conversation had been good. Too good. And it’s the only kind of conversation I know that leaves me more alone than I was before it started.

Kinetyra